<b>XIII LOK SABHA DEBATES, <i> Session II (Winter Session) </i> </b>
XIII LOK SABHA DEBATES, Session II (Winter Session) Monday, December 20, 1999/Agrahayana 29, 1921 (Saka )


Type of Debate: GOVERNMENT BILL
Title: Discussion on the Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 1999 (Bill passed).

TEXT :
MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall now take up Item No.13.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): I beg to move:

"That the Bill further to amend the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and to validate certain revision petitions disposed of under the rules made under the said Act, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration."

Sir, it was in 1968 that the CISF was raised and given a statutory status by the adoption of a CISF Act 1968. The concept was that we have so many public undertakings and there was need for creation of a special security apparatus for these industrial undertakings.

Sir, the Central Security Force serves this purpose. But it has been experienced that the Government of India has to attend to the security of several other sections which may not strictly fall within the definition of public undertakings. Take for example, all places and establishments connected with Atomic Energy or Space. Now, we need securities for them. But the law itself says that this particular CISF will be used for public undertakings; those particular Government bodies do not come within the purview. One purpose of today's Amendment is to ensure that the CISF can be used for other Government units also, which may not strictly fall within the purview of a public undertaking. Also, because of the changes that have been coming about in the economic set up and because of the fact that the CISF has developed a kind of an expertise in the matter of security, which even private institutions and private undertakings would like to avail of, a provision is being made to allow CISF to be a consultant to such undertakings, which are not public undertakings but private undertakings.

These are the two purposes for which this Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Bill has been brought. It has already been passed by the Rajya Sabha, and, therefore, as passed by the Rajya Sabha, I have come to this House to secure its endorsement.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Motion moved:

"That the Bill further to amend the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and to validate certain revision petitions disposed of under the rules made under the said Act, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration."

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to the Motion for Consideration of the Bill.

Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, are you moving?

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, I am not moving the amendment but I will certainly make a few observations.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Sir, the hon. Home Minister has just stated the objectives of this Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 1999, which is before the House.

There are serious concerns among the CISF cadres, senior officials about their fate in future.

Sir, I quite share with the observation of the hon. Home Minister that in the changed scenario both in the economic front and political front, deployment of officials, specially of the paramilitary forces are the order of the day. But in the case of CISF, this Amendment says one thing, which did not specify and clarify as to what it means. It says:

"Any such other duties as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government"

Further, Section 7 of the principal Act says:

"(h) any other duty which may be entrusted to him by the Central Government from time to time."

Also I understand that the scope of this Bill is to provide consultancy to the private industrial houses. Maybe in the long run, the meaning of `industry' as it is given here, `private industrial houses, Indian partnership firm in any manner or form', CISF could be asked to go there; and even to those places where CRPF, BSF or other IPS cadres are functioning in whatever form or nature of the duty it may be.

My first objection to this Amendment is that this subject was dealt with thoroughly in the Fifty-fourth Report of the Standing Committee of the Home Affairs where this matter was discussed in depth after gathering information from all quarters.

Finally, this Standing Committee was of the opinion that in future the parity of these officers who are coming from the Civil Services Examination and other details should be examined first. The Ministry of Home Affairs thereafter, in response to the Standing Committee's observation, formed one Committee, headed by the then Special Secretary, Mr. Nikhil Kumar. I understand the second Committee was also formed which was headed by Mr. Kakkar; and they made certain recommendations. Nikhil Kumar's recommendations were not very clear. Therefore, another Committee was set up which was headed by Mr. Kakkar. The recommendations are not known to us. But in the light of the recommendations, the Home Minister should explain how the Government came forward with this Bill.

Therefore, the change of nature of duties as envisaged in the CISF (Amendment and Validation) Bill should also be coupled with the issue of these directly recruited officers of CISF, in consonance with the 54th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home which had discussed this issue at length and recommended reallocation of the direct officers of CISF into IPS or any other Group `A' Civil Service. Here the amendment is silent.

The direct Group `A' officers of CISF have qualified the same Civil Services Examination meant for intake of IPS. These officers have undergone the same foundation course meant for the IPS and the other Central Group `A' Civil Services, and moreover, they also underwent the same indoor and outdoor training as that of an IPS officer. All restrictions imposed on IPS in Rules 4 and 17 were imposed on direct Group `A' officers of CISF but not on direct officers of CRPF, BSF and ITBP. In this context, it may be mentioned that even Group `B' officers of State or Provincial Police Services are conferred with IPS after certain years of service.

Even the Fifth Central Pay Commission has recommended for merger of isolated posts with an organized cadre in the same Ministry or outside as per annexure 224(1) of the Report of the Fifth Pay Commission.

The Home Minister must clarify this position in regard to the future of these officers. The Home Minister may come out with a statement straightaway saying that this is not a problem of directly recruited officers of CISF but there are similar other problems of the paramilitary forces.

I would like to address the hon. Home Minister through you that of the entire paramilitary forces in the country CISF is the only paramilitary force whose officers are selected through Combined Civil Services Examination. Thus, there is no question of clubbing them with others together. This is my submission to the Home Minister.

Some of the officers in CISF were allotted other Group `A' services like IPS, Audit and Accounts, Railways but were not permitted to join them due to rules existing in the past.

Therefore, I would humbly submit to the hon. Home Minister that there is a very strong IPS lobby both in the Ministry of Home Affairs and in the entire bureaucracy. (Interruptions) Please do not take it otherwise. I met some of the officers and I can tell the hon. Minister that some of such bright officers, even the women, are suffering, even for their status and rank. At the same time, when an IPS officer who is now DG or DIG in CISF is asked to go and take, they even cannot become Commodore. So, this kind of disparities are still there.

While candidates selected for IPS and for Central Group `A' Services can take extension for one year to appear at the Civil Service Examination, an IPS officer will be eligible to appear for IAS, IFS and Central Group `A' Services. Central Group `A' officer can also appear for IAS, IFS and IPS.

The CISF recruitment rules were not changed accordingly after the recruitment in CISF started through Civil Services Examination, and there was no initiative on the part of CISF to change the same to bring parity with other Central Services included in Civil Services Examination list.

The Department had never been honoured such parity as mentioned even though the same was upheld by the Delhi Bench of CAT in some cases.

Now, I would urge upon the hon. Minister that while such restrictions - rule 4 and 17 - are based on the parity among higher Civil Servants, what action has the Ministry of Home Affairs taken to give these officers such parity in the Service Conditions?

I can cite so many examples or cases of so many officers. I have with me, cases of at least 15 bright officers, who had been victimised. I do not like to quote by taking much time of the House. Out of these officers, three of the officers were women.

There are many officers in CISF who were selected for the IPS, IRAS, IRTS and IRPS and were not allowed to join the same on account of rule 4 and 17 on the premise that all Central Group A Civil Services stand on equal footing.

1526 hours (Shrimati Margaret Alva in the Chair)

Therefore, it would have been better if the hon. Minister of Home Affairs considered it fit, without getting it passed today -- I have withdrawn my amendment as I do not want to embarrass the hon. Minister -- to have a relook into the whole thing, if not sending it further to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs and come out again with the Bill. It is because, one of the observations of the Committee that was appointed is not clear to us, even to the House. Since it was not clear, and on the recommendations of the Standing Committee, you have appointed another Committee - Kakkar Committee, I think, it is not reflected in this Bill. It would have been more proper to ensure justice or whether the hon. Minister of Home Affairs will ensure the House that if there are lapses where my observations have not been put into effect to protect the interests, the parity and other things of the CISF cadre, will he come out with some relevant rules along with this amendment in future course to see that their future, ambition, status and their long duration of service -- they have a better mental faculty -- are not disturbed with?

After all, spending such a long time in the service, the same kind of batchmates are facing different kinds of treatment. It is not fair also for the homogeneity of the system for which your Bill is got that you have to deploy them for other activities and other duties.

Therefore, I would like very sincerely to address the hon. Minister to look into the issue. I will just explain a few attributes of Group A Civil Services.

"The highest cadre post is not below the rank of Joint Secretary

It has all standard time scales

At least 50 per cent of the vacancies in junior time scale are filled by direct recruitment.

All vacancies above junior time scale and up to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) are filled by promotion from the lower grade.

The Senior scale to these officers is given in the 5th year, the JAG in the 9th year, the SAG in the 14 year as per time scale. They will be eligible for Joint Secretary/IG after 16th year subject to DPC.

All direct officers at Junior scale of a particular year are bunched together and placed at the top of the existing vacancies of a particular year followed by the promotee officers at the bottom.

Feeder cadre for these Group A services should be a Group B service with a minimum of six years of service.

It is mandatory that there is no deputation till the level of JAG.

They are all eligible for central deputation pool."

These are the attributes of Group `A' Civil Services.

CISF could not appear before many Committees because they have no organised associations and three of their representations have been turned down on so many occasions.

Now, the example can be cited about some of the sections of the Ministry of Home Affairs as to how they could be amalgamated. There are instances how on earlier occasions such things had happened. I will just give an example for the information of the hon. Minister -- I hope he is in possession of such an information -- that earlier, the recommendations of the National Police Commission in regard to the status and promotional alternatives, which recommended certain things by Shri Nikhil Kumar.

"According to the Committee's recommendations (accepted by the Government), the faulty system of fixation of seniority in CISF (Rota Quota System), has been discontinued and quota of deputation from the IPS has been reduced. Since the seniority of direct officers cannot be changed retrospectively, it is simply not going to have any effect on their plight."

Therefore, the recommendation which the other Committee, that is, the Kakkar Committee has made, also requires to be seen, and since we are not in the knowledge of that recommendation, it is difficult at this stage to make any contribution in the light of the amendments because we do not know whether the recommendation of the Kakkar Committee also has been reflected in these amendments or not.

I would, therefore, humbly submit that please do not cover them under rule 4 and 17 of the Civil Services Examination. If you are sincere to engage them in any other duties, maintaining their status, their promotional avenues at par, then have a re-look at the entire thing and if the lapses are there, either frame rules and regulations or the hon. Minister may not insist on the Bill to be passed today. He himself can suo motu refer it for further examination by the Standing Committee in the light of the two recommendations which are expected to come before the House, that is, (i) the Nikhil Kumar Committee's recommendation which is lying with you, and (ii) the Kakkar Committee's recommendation. I would humbly appeal to the Home Minister that without making any hurry, he should have a direct interaction at his level with the CISF officials, without leaving it to be interacted by the bureaucracy because there is an apprehension and fear that these officers will not be given justice by the existing cadre, the IPS, in the Home Ministry.

With these words, I conclude and hope that the Home Ministry will very favourably respond to remove the anxiety, apprehension and anguish of the CISF cadre.

MAJ. GEN. (RETD.) B.C. KHANDURI : Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I rise to support the Bill with certain suggestions. My suggestions are in two parts. In the first part, I would like to make some comments, some minor observations on the various clauses that have been included in this Bill, and in the second part, I would also like to dwell on what Shri Dasmunsi has just now stated.

In clause 2 of the Bill, the only change from the existing Bill is that the words "and to provide technical consultancy services to industrial establishments in the private sector" have been added. This is the only addition to the title and I do not know whether the various major changes that have been included in the Bill would really be legally tenable. This may please be looked into because we are changing the major issues but we are not changing the title. If those issues are also to be brought in, then, maybe, the title would also need to be suitably modified.

About clause 3, it has nothing to do with this Bill, but just I want to bring to the Home Minister's notice that we are referring to the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. I think it is time that somebody should look into it and update it. My suggestion is that even if this 1932 Act is to be reproduced and some minor changes are to be made, then it should be updated and we should not go by an Act which has been made in 1932.

There is an existing omnibus provision in clause 4 of the existing Bill and, therefore, I do not know why various additional things are being included. We have this omnibus clause which says: "and to perform such other duties as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government". Was this clause by itself not sufficient to get the many types of duties or was it necessary to specifically add some duties into it and then also close the scope for any duties other than those duties? Therefore, when you say in clause 3 that such and such shall be inserted, that means we have both the clauses - the omnibus clause as well as the specific clauses...(Interruptions)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : Jbڮ ɽ, +{ i n E i Ei l, + ʴn ɹ *

Vɮ Vxɮ (xɴii) ִx Sxp Jhbc (Mgɱ): `E , ʽxn i * j V, { 5 +{x EU {xɱ]V bɱ * V {ɽ iɪ Mɪ l E +{x ʴǺ E ]Ǻ Bb EbҶƺ n * E B ʤx M E ɽi E Ex, Exx { ɽ xɽ? E< {xɱ] V ʨɱ E M< +xE |Eɮ E nb V nB V Ei , E ɽ , E ɽ Mɱ ɽ M xɽ?

Jxbڮ Vɮ {-6 E ɤEV-2 E , ɽ xɽ nJ Mɪ * Ex-9 E ɤ EV-2 ʱJ -

"In disposing of an appeal, the prescribed authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed".

<ɨ {ڮ U] n M< , V |Vɮ +{ +{xx Sɽ, ɽ , ʡ ɤEV-2(a) + (

b)

E n V , ɽ {ɹ] xɽ * ɽ i ɨZ xɽ + *

{-7 BE ɤn +ɪ -

owned and funded -

ɽ Vxx SɽM E ɮ ƺlɪ {h { MɴxǨ] xbb {ʶǪɱ Mɴɨ] xbb ? ɽ ɨɺ n + Ei * V EU { ɮ uɮ n Vi , EU nںɮ ƺlɪ n , EU ɱb-E n M - < ɮ =E +xn ʱJ xɽ, ɽ E{ɪ nJ VB*

nںɮ i, V |ɪɮVx nɺ ƶ V x =`ɪ , =E ɮ Ex Sɽi * 54 ʮ{] ʴɺiɮ < ʴɹɪ E ɮ ʱJ *


[NEXT PAGE]